industrialised for about 200.

Which was when the manmade damage REALLY began. You do know that something like 97% of the scientists involved in climate-related study agree on the causes?

Fred – your dimmers will probably use the same electricity whether dimmed or not. Your personal vanity is to have dimmer switches which as you say you don’t have fully on much of the time. You comment on 40w & 60w bulbs, but not on those equivalent to your personal choice of 100w – get the proper bulbs then.

Your ‘few quid’ for the electric would be a few quid less. As I highlighted, you don’t see the whole cost, just what you pay up front. You used to be good at defending your corner on here – this isn’t a good example of your work.

I read as far as the words “soda bottles”

Whilst I am interested in green issues, I’m not interested in recollections of a shared youth that I didn’t share with some american

Also not sure that americans are in any position to be telling us how they ‘ve really been green all along.

Tesco baygs disintegrate after a while. They crumble and fall apart.

True, wasn’t that down to UV light? Doubt you’d get much of that in a landfill site!

Ok buy me a 100W equivalent dimmable energy saving bulb and I’ll start using that, then.

Until then, I’ll just use the stock of incandescent 100W bulbs what I bought from Steve’s Bestsellers in Chrisp St Market until they’re all gone. I’m not going out faffing about to buy bloody expensive ES bulbs.

Your ‘few quid’ for the electric would be a few quid less.

S’like Deore v XT, innit? 😉

Incandescent 100W bulbs from Steve’s Bestsellers in Chrisp St Market offer me the quality of light I want, at an extremely low price. It would probbly take several years for the ES version to actually provide me with any real money saving over the Incandescent 100W bulbs from Steve’s Bestsellers in Chrisp St Market. 🙂

Do you drive a car?

Falling apart isn’t the same as biodegrading. You just end up with millions of tiny pieces of plastic in the food chain.

Ok buy me a 100W equivalent dimmable energy saving bulb and I’ll start using that, then

They sell them at our B&Q Elf. And Google returns tons of results. They are quite readily available.

And let’s face it, dimmability isn’t an essential.

So if I go to B+Q, then that’s two pounds seventy in bus fares, plus the cost of the bulb. If I order online, then it’s extra carbon for delivery vayns and packaging and stuff.

This ‘energy saving’ duzzunt seem to be saving me either energy or money. 😐

dimmability isn’t an essential.

Yes it is. Is your car essential?

People die naturally, but killing them is still bad, isn’t it?

I dunno, Woppit might be the exception that proves the rule here. Anyway, doesn’t he believe in god and such, so surely the world’s only a few thousand years old and there were no dinosaurs?

Anthropogenic global warming is very real. You will find precious few credible scientists who deny the theory. You will find plenty who have good questions to ask about its magnitude, and most of these questions arise from how the models project the true unknowns – natural attenuation vs self-reinforcing mechanisms.

Most of the climate change episodes recorded through the geological record point to sudden (on a geological timescale) changes in atmospheric chemistry. What, precisely, do you consider our manipulation of the atmosphere for the bast 250 years to be?

In any case, for the deniers (who are very different from the true skeptics) I leave you with this:

Sorry, cheap snipe:

And let’s face it, dimmability isn’t an essential.

Fred spends most of his life on here playing up to be particularly dim, so in his case, it probably is 😆

Yeah but I can turn the brightness up whenever I want, Zokes. You, sadly, do not appear to have such control… 😐

You, sadly, do not appear to have such control…

I tend to work in energy-saving mode on here. Sort of stand-by, if you will…

Jamie – Member
Incidentally, did the OP every come back?

Yes, I’m still here,

watching with mild amusement as a tongue in cheek thread gets so many folks hot under the collar …. but what else would I expect from STW 😉

Your argument about travelling to B&Q is not a good one – you could order online, or pick some up next time you are there for something else 🙂

Is your car essential?

No, of course not. But there are some interesting points. Me owning a car has nothing to do with you using incandescent lightbulbs.

1) People seem to think that they are allowed a quota of carbon usage, and if they don’t fly or drive then they can be inefficient in other areas. It doens’t work like that – we are all obliged to cut whatever we can in any area.

2) People are always saying ‘yeah well I’m greener than you’. This is not a personal competition. See above – we all need to cut whatever we can, regardless of what our neighbours do. Each KG of CO2 in the air doesn’t care about where the others came from or why they are there.

To the OP – calling it tongue in cheek doesn’t help, bollx is still bollx. For it to be a joke it has to be funny not just wrong 🙂

No, of course not. But there are some interesting points. Me owning a car has nothing to do with you using incandescent lightbulbs.

Of course it has. Unless you are making every effort yourself to minimise your environmental impact an ting, then it’s very hypocritical to have a go at me for using one incandescent bulb in one room of my flat. 😉

1) People seem to think that they are allowed a quota of carbon usage, and if they don’t fly or drive then they can be inefficient in other areas. It doens’t work like that – we are all obliged to cut whatever we can in any area.

I already do this. I choose to use the incandescent bulb because it is the best choice for what I want it to do. Simple as that. Bit like buying XT over Deore cos it’s lighter/tougher or whatever.

2) People are always saying ‘yeah well I’m greener than you’. This is not a personal competition.

What’s wrong with making it a ‘competition’? IE, someone has a pop at me for using an incandescent lightbulb what I bought from Steve’s Bestsellers in Chrisp St Market, i come back at them with ‘do you need a car?’, and then they admit they don’t, then if they went and ditched their car so’s they din’t look hypocritical, then that would be good for the planet. 😀

Why shoon’t we encourage competion to be ‘greener’? Like the ‘Greenest Car’ or ‘Greenest Pub’ etc. Would be good.

To the OP – calling it tongue in cheek doesn’t help, bollx is still bollx. For it to be a joke it has to be funny not just wrong

I didn’t say it was a ” joke ” , subtle but esssential differance, I said it was ” tongue in cheek “

If you re-read the OP carefully I suggest that rather than call it bollx you may actually start to not only change that opinion but also rather think it has merit, not only that I think you will find that not a thing said in the OP is wrong, rather it is about all the little things we all CAN do to help and a lot of folks have been doing for a long time with out shouting about it and that it is the point .

Don’t talk the talk …. Walk the walk

In essence what I am saying is that the ” green thing ” is not really new at all ..
Think of it ….

surely walking is better than driving ( for what ever reason )
re using bottles is better than throwing them away ( for what ever reason )
few folks actually NEED a motorised lawn mower
can you watch more than 1 Tele at a time ?

etc etc

Don’t talk the talk …. Walk the walk

You’ve got to do both, otherwise the message never gets around.

I had a pop at you for using flawed logic in your futile attempt to defend your corner. Your cost arguement still misses the while life cost of you using an inefficient bulb. Use an old bulb all you like but you tried to justify that on a cost basis then (as usual) weasely word out of that. Fail.

Unless you are making every effort yourself to minimise your environmental impact an ting, then it’s very hypocritical to have a go at me for using one incandescent bulb in one room of my flat.

Well not really. I am saying that we need to cut whatever we can. Your light bulb is not important, I am not having a go at you for that. I was talking in general terms. I admit that I do not do all I can and I strive to do more. More people need to do the same. However many people don’t give a crap and are happily buying fast cars and all the rest of it. Giving a crap would be the first stage I feel.

Why shoon’t we encourage competion to be ‘greener’? Like the ‘Greenest Car’ or ‘Greenest Pub’ etc. Would be good

It would get very nasty very quickly. Even nastier than it is now…

I think you will find that not a thing said in the OP is wrong

I think I will find that, and that is what I object to. It makes out that the younger generation are slagging off the older ones (which I think is wrong) and that they had all the answers (which is also wrong). And it makes out that the older generation re-used bottles and clothes because it was eco friendly, which is also not true.

There are of course exceptions but mostly –

Poorer = greener
Richer = less greener

Give the guy in a mud hut some cash and he’ll buy a fridge,
some more and he’ll get a moped to get around,
some more and he’ll get loads of 100W dimmable lamps in the hut
some mor and he’ll get a nice big telly and an X station
some more and he’ll get a car, just a wee one
some more and he’ll demolish the mud hut and build a tin shack
some more and he’ll get rid of the wee car and get a range rover
some more and he’ll fly abroad three times a year on holiday and stay in a hotel where they wash everything every day and have heated pools, hot rooms and loads of wasted food
some more and he’ll build a nice big house instead of the tin shack
some more and he’ll get a Ferrari to go with the RR
etc, etc

Most people when they get money just can’t help spending it and become less green in the process.

Grand Designs is a great way to see this in action. So often it’s a middle aged couple and they are ALWAYS building an eco house. The house generally is huge with acres of glass and megatonnes of concrete. How is it eco to build a huge house just because you can afford it? If they were poorer they would be forced into being greener by building a house properly sized for their needs.

I’m not having a go mind, if I was loaded I’d definately have a new Range rover 🙂

Grand Designs is a great way to see this in action. So often it’s a middle aged couple and they are ALWAYS building an eco house. The house generally is huge with acres of glass and megatonnes of concrete. How is it eco to build a huge house just because you can afford it? If they were poorer they would be forced into being greener by building a house properly sized for their needs.

Nah, they always justify it by saying that it’s either “stepping stone technology” or “it’s a demonstration that eco materials and techniaques are affordable*” (* to a middle aged professional couple from Surrey).

I am jealous of some of their pads though!

Re grand designs – if you want a huge house, then it’s better to make it low energy than not, isn’t it? It’ll still have tons of concrete in it whichever way.

Aye but what I’m saying is that a couple building a house with ten rooms and vaulted ceilings is not eco. If they were truly concerned with being eco they’d build something half the size and still have it insulated and solar panels etc.

Well that’s just it. Is it about being truly eco, or about mitigating the effects of what you want? Which should it be?

We could spend all our lives in the town we live in, never watch telly, never go anywhere, and be vegetarian. But should we?

molgrips – Member

Well that’s just it. Is it about being truly eco, or about mitigating the effects of what you want? Which should it be?

We could spend all our lives in the town we live in, never watch telly, never go anywhere, and be vegetarian. But should we?

thats the light green / dark green dichotomy.

The light greens believe you can mitigate the worst effects without altering their lifestyle and that will do, the dark greens understand changing your lifestyle is the only way to make a significant difference.

Not getting at you moley but a light green buys a prius, a dark green a bike. the light green buys local meat, the dark green considers meat an occasional treat

To me there is no point in being a light green.

Let’s face it TJ, they lost 50% of the population of central Scotland the moment they labelled an eco-friendly lifestyle “being green”.

Steve’s Bestsellers in Chrisp St Market

Hope everybody got that… 😉

I had a pop at you for using flawed logic in your futile attempt to defend your corner. Your cost arguement still misses the while life cost of you using an inefficient bulb. Use an old bulb all you like but you tried to justify that on a cost basis then (as usual) weasely word out of that. Fail.

Not fail.

‘Life cost’ wtf bs pretentious crap is that? ‘Life cost’ indeed… 😆

At the current moment, purchasing an energy saving dimmable bulb would either involve greater expense than is currently worth it (I have existing bulbs which suit their intended purpose perfectly), greater amount of energy used (bus journey to B+Q/delivery vayn to my house would have a greater environmental impact than the extra energy used by the bulb), and throwing away perfectly good bulbs now rather than waiting until they’re used and gone would just create extra waste over the same period of time. And there would probably be no cost saving to me whatsoever. Weighed up, using the existing supply of bulbs is probably the ‘greenest’ solution.

So not Fail at all. In fact, Win. 🙂

I understand the need for everyone to reduce their energy usage and wastage, but this must also be balanced with what is reasonably practical. That’s what the environmental idealists fail to realise all too often.

What car do you drive?

LOL@ ditchjockey.

but a light green buys a prius, a dark green a bike

What if you buy both? You can be shades of green beyond light and dark.

It’s obvious that altering lifestyles is imperative. It’s a question of how much.

The thing is that I KNOW what I do is not enough. But I’m at a bit of a loss as to how to change that without severely compromising our happiness.

I understand the need for everyone to reduce their energy usage and wastage, but this must also be balanced with what is reasonably practical.

Buying a dimmable CFL is emminently practical. As would putting in a normal light switch. Reclaimed, of course. Also, no-ones suggested you throw away any of your incandescent bulbs. That would be wasteful, although maybe actually less wasteful since you have five of the things. The total energy cost MIGHT actually be less if you throw them away, but I have not done the sums. Nor have you though, I’d wager 🙂

And what car he drives is not important. It doesn’t make any difference who tells you to reduce energy, it’s still true.

Buying a dimmable CFL is emminently practical.

Not at the moment it’s not. I’ve explained why.

Also, no-ones suggested you throw away any of your incandescent bulbs

So what am I going to do with them then? 😕

And what car he drives is not important.

Yes it is. It’s no good preaching to me about a flipping lightbulb if he’s driving a 2.4 litre car when a 1.4 one would be perfectly adequate, is it? 😕

Lead by example. Bono blethers on about climate change, yet flies everywhere. What an utter hypocrite. ‘Do as I say, not do as I do’.

It don’t work like that. What’s the point of me recycling my cardboard if the actions of others totally negate any efforts I’m making? Just becomes pointless.

given up trying to post image of steve’s bloody shop here
clicky

Not at the moment it’s not.

No-one said do it now. Although according to others you would save money if you did.

It’s no good preaching to me about a flipping lightbulb if he’s driving a 2.4 litre car when a 1.4 one would be perfectly adequate, is it?

He’s still right about saving energy, even if he drives a hummer. And – and this is important – he’s not preaching. He’s informing you of the obligations we ALL have.

Hurrah for emissions!! It means “we’re” not going to have to cope with freezing to death for a bit longer…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16439807

It’s an interesting idea, that historically we were less wasteful because the concept of disposable goods was non-existent, and the turnover of technology and fashions in consumer goods was far slower.

Of course the seeds were sewn for all of this during the war nothing stimulates the Human capacity for simultanious technological advancement and massive waste of resources like a huge, massive-great fight! We got a real taste for it and carried on for the next 60 odd years, So actually current levels of waste and environmental destruction are entitrely the fault of Older (mostly now dead) generations…
It’s far better to blame people who aren’t about to defend themselves, first law of scapegoating…

Ultimately None of it matters, Whos fault it is what proportion of the blame to lay at each generations feet.

No what really matters is “being cool” – As we all know caring about stuff, especially the environment isn’t cool.
The seas can rise the ice caps melt, rainforests turn to deserts and desert to Tundra, So long as we live in a world with young chaps looking as aloof and disinterested as possible, wearing whatever sunglasses are cool this week, with 80g of (oil based) “Product” holding their foppish do in place, flanked an 18 year old annorexic, from Belarus who looks equally disinterested then all is righ twith the world…

“So many of you come time and time again to watch this final end of everything, which I think is really wonderful, and then to return home to your own eras and raise families, and strive for new and better societies and fight terrible wars for what you know is right, it gives one real hope for the whole future of lifekind.

Except of course we know, it hasn’t got one. ” 😯

Hurrah for emissions!! It means “we’re” not going to have to cope with freezing to death for a bit longer…

Seriously, climate denying clowns around the world will be coming up with this line from now until the very moment that the arctic is ice free, Texas is flattened by a hurricane, London floods, or whatever truly gigantic/catastrophic event it takes for them to finally wake up to reality.

I believe some “scientists” came up with it?

Sounds good to me, anyway. Probably also to the poor buggers who’d otherwise be frozen into position by the millions…

I believe some “scientists” came up with it?

I’m sure they did.

The trouble starts when ignoramuses (ignorami?) start interpreting what the scientists say.

The scientists may well have said that the next ice age (maybe due in 1500 years) might be delayed.

But I’m sure that they didn’t say that that would be a good (or bad) thing.

In the meantime, I’m a bit more worried about what might happen in my lifetime or the lifetime of my kids.

And what car he drives is not important. It doesn’t make any difference who tells you to reduce energy, it’s still true.

+1 molgrips. The idea that if you do anything that has an environmental impact you’re in no position to make any observations about the environment is utterly bogus. Otherwise only people living in hedges wearing rabbit skins would be `qualified’ to say anything.

I believe some “scientists” came up with it?

Woppit – that’s not news – the theory has been widely acknowledged for ages. What more evidence do you need that humans are adversely changing the environment?

In fact, this guy has some very compelling arguments for the fact that intensification of rice paddy farming 5000 years ago started what we’ve amplified greatly since the industrial revolution.